I think 699 s is a bit short at times .. 371 years would be too much for most practical purposes ... but lets say one hour or a day maybe and then with some different wave forms .. i could actually use that I guess.

Had a quick look at the patch .. could use a couple of lines of how it works ... and how I could change the speed.

In the past I've used another way to make things slow BTW ... using a delay controlled with a saw .. that is .. downsampling an LFO.

For random I'd now use a sample and hold I guess .. but would be nice then if the smoothing could be set to be really long too ...

Anyways .. just some babblings

6 point how many billion years you're nuts I'd like to see that one too tho ... but again .. with a couple of comment lines please._________________Jan

It was just a little thought experiment using two nested counter circuits counting the smallest possible increment within the 24 bit numerical system @24kHz. Counting to 2^48 at 24000 times a second takes 371 years. The 6 billion version would simply add another counter stage. (2^72)

I'll have to (happily) eat my words though pertaining the G2 LFOs, because some further testing revealed that their internal counters DO in fact seem to have an even higher resolution than 24 bit after all. Meaning: If you simply apply a negative constant to the LFO mod input, it goes even slower than the slowest base setting of 669 seconds.
The mod inputs can take a maximum of +/- 64 units and track exponentially (unattenuated). So, if the math still is correct at these low rates, a -12 constant (12 semitones or an octave lower) should drop the LFO frequency by half, -24 by four, etc. -60 (5 octaves, or factor 32) should give you 5.94 hours, and -64 even more than that.

Come to think of it, in this case one could patch the 6 billion years LFO simply with two LFO modules (using the concept of interference and modulating the phase of one with the other).

(*) EDIT: I tested it and it is robust. The test patch below demonstrates a sawtooth LFO at 669 seconds and another one tuned down 5 octaves and its range boosted by factor 32 -both modulating test oscillators panned L and R. The pitches match up perfectly. Well done, Clavia.

slow LFO test.pch2

Description:

Testing the tracking of LFOs at slowest rates. See topic for discussion.

Of course, one could use a random LFO, but I've never been a fan of those because the smoothing is too fast, resulting in gaps where nothing happens.

Here's an elegant solution for deriving an uniformly smooth random LFO from a sawtooth LFO, neatly using the 'Clk' output to clock the random numbers and the ramp signal to linearly interpolate between them.

Is it true for Osc modules too ? I mean can I get better resolution than 0.0057 Hz ? Or I mix apples with oranges ?!

I don't know. There are at least two potential bottlenecks here. The resolution of the counter is one thing, but the other is the lin-expo conversion math for the incremental value. The upward detune factor of a given frequency for one cent is the 1200th root of 2. Resolution issues therefore ,logically, are bigger at low frequencies.

What I do know for sure is that the oscillators will, with correct settings, accurately track the keyboard, even in the sub-audio range. This discovery made it possible for me to optimize my granular synthesis algorithms, and thus throw in more features (individual multimode filter per grain). So I guess the oscillators, too, have pretty good resolution.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum

Please support our site. If you click through and buy from our affiliate partners, we earn a small commission.